Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967 - 33

matters. There are insurance policies available to protect
against design liability and by endorsements on theatre liability policies a designer can be protected. Design liability
policies are premised on the assumption that the person designing is legally qualified to perform the particular work.
Engineering registration statutes usually provide specifically
for professional engineering or registered architect involvement when structural safety becomes an issue. The same is
true where engineering principles and data are critical.
Generally, for normal set design, structural safety or engineering concern does not exist. As witness to this, the
New York City Building Department has never required the
filing of plans for set design. Naturally, for any actual theatre building alteration or construction, plans must be filed
with certification by a professional engineer or registered
architect. If work is designed in an unqualified manner, and
as a result an injury occurs, it is almost impossible to remove the burden of liability from those responsible for the
design.
In "Paradise Lost" John Milton offered "Law unto ourselves,
our reason is our Law" as a premise for action. Let me caution that if you become enamoured of this belief, you, too,
can lose your paradise.
Resume
by Burghard M. Engele
In considering what is new in theatre technology, we have
to realize that it is not only a tool to make a certain design
work, but it also could and should influence new design
ideas even as new ideas call for new tools.
Trying to pinpoint the new ideas, we find that most of them
stem from either 2000, 300 or 50 years ago as our occidental culture moved from a linear through a three dimensional perspective concept into non-perspective and multidimensional consciousness. The information explosion of the
Twentieth Century has finally brought about the cultural and
Theatre explosion which this country is experiencing right
now.
All of a sudden everybody is aware of all kinds of different
possibilities of theatre arrangements. We are no longer satisfied with the 18th Century proscenium alone-we also
know about and want to have the Greek arena, the El izabeth an stage, the open stage, No and Kubuki, multiple
scenes, mixing film and live performers, and even the interchangeability between audience and actors in happenings the whole works, well air-conditioned, lit, sound-reinforced,
noise-controlled, televised and broadcast for the greatest
number of spectators at the best comfort and for very little
money.
We, as creators of the contemporary theatre building are responsible for giving the public all these possibilities. Unless
we are willing to close down our museums and libraries, we
can talk only about the "new theatre" or the "theatre of the
future." I can neither agree with Jaques Polieri that the
proscenium stage is dead nor with Max Frisch that it is sufficient for every type of performance. Even Tyrone Guthrie,
the most famous exponent of the Elizabethan stage, concedes that some of the dramatic literature after 1640 is
suited better to a proscenium. Many attempts to solve these
probl ems or to develop a new theatre were already made between 1918 and 1928 by Strnad, Poelzig, Bel Geddes,
Kiesler, Vakhtangov, Honigsfeld, Molnar, Gropius and Barchin,
to name the most important innovators. Virtually none of
their theatres were built at the time. However, a few new
concepts appeared in recent years allover the western world
almost simultaneously. The first modular systems of elevators (square in this country, hexagonal in Germany, triangular
in France), all had the same purpose of creating three di-

OCTOBER, 1967

mensional areas that would be populated by either spectators or actors. The second idea implies the moving about of
blocks of patrons towards various acting areas. This is not
really new, since in effect, it was done in the middle ages
at passion plays-only with less effort and comfort.
So much for new or not so new concepts. In order to carry
them out we will need rather complicated and expensive
equipment. Let me Just mention a few of the tools that
should be available for our consideration: movable and removable proscenia, forestages, blocks of seats; revolving
stages and auditoria; modular systems of elevators for stage
and auditorium; movable, remotely-controlled,pre-programmed
ceilings, clouds, walls, shells, traps, cycloramas, bridges,
towers, cranes; turntables with built-in elevators; stage wagons countersunk, self-propelled wi th built-in turntables; stereo
and effect sound systems. I admit this list sounds frightening and I am certainly not advocating the use of everything
everywhere, but some of it can sometimes save a great deal
of time and effort and in the long run a lot of money too.
Many of these things exist in other parts of the world.
As we move from mechanization towards automation, we can
no longer afford to treat theatre technology in a romantically
amateurish way. We have to make use of new technics that
are being developed by the industries, for example, miniaturization, synchronization, servo-motors, remote control, computerization, holography, laser beams, and environmental control.
But who is going to help us design such equipment? As I
look at the panel here I see structural, electrical and acoustical engineers, but I am missing the stage engineer. I think
this is very significant. Granted there are lots of very experienced stage and lighting and theatre consultants, experts,
advisors, managers, technicians, designers, etc., ready and
willing to work with you, to tell you all about and give you
some kind of drawing of your stage equipment. But is that
enough? They can be most valuable in determining spatial
requirements and relationships, lighting positions and angles,
seating and sight lines, curtains and drapes, but sometimes
if you ask too much, you can get answers Iike the following and I quote: "The play is the thing; all we need is a
platform, the simpler, the better." "If you have a loft, you
don't need side stages--or vice versa." "Nobody is ever
going to use that." "That does not exist; the users will
build it as they need it." "That would never work; that was
in fashion 30 years ago." "Multipurpose is no purpose."
"This is a young country." "You don't understand the
American way of theatre."
When I mentioned the stage engineer earlier, I had in mind
a professional man with an engineering degree who is
equipped and able to design, calculate, dimension and estimate very sophisticated machinery with complicated, interlocking, indicator, coupling, synchronizing, safety and control
systems. He will deliver detail drawings and specifications
of all components thereof. He has to be familiar with the
latest developments in theatre design and machinery design
and he should be imaginative enough to conceive new methods and approaches. Through experience I am led to believe that there are only one or two men in the entire
U.S.A. who fit this description. Since they cannot possibly
do all the work at hand, we will have to turn to books.
And there we have a real dilemma-the only comprehensive
book about theatre technology appeared in 1930. All others
show you very nice pictures of facades and interiors, even
some plans and sections-usually without scale-but all of
them treat machinery like a step-child. The same holds true
for projection and sound equipment.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967